Date: 19.05.2019 Total number of pages: 85
Course code:BE300E Name / Candidate no.:
Bohdan Dorosh / 3
The role of control in shaping dialogue in participatory budgeting: case study of the city of Kyiv
I
Abstract
Modern representative democracies are in the crisis of representative politics. In order to deal with this crisis, authorities are seeking for new democratic tools of citizens’ engagement in the decision-making process, based on the dialogue. Participatory budgeting (PB) is the example of such an accounting tool which is vital for promoting democracy and dialogue rhetoric. However, the effectiveness of PB cannot be taken for granted, and some challenges are observed in different cases. Interestingly, despite plenty of literature regarding PB challenges, there is also an acknowledgement that dialogue and democratic means of PB should somehow be controlled, steered and framed. However, there is not so much written about the control/steering dimension in PB.
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the existing literature on PB, regarding its dialogue and control dimensions. It answers the question of what kind of control is exercised in the PB process and how it shapes PB dialogic means. To answer this question, I use/mobilise the dialogue literature (Rajala &
Laihonen, 2019) and Simon’s Levers of control (LOC) (Simons, 1995).
Empirically, based on interviews, documentality analysis and observations, I examine the PB process in the city of Kyiv (Ukraine) as a case study.
Examining the dialogic and control dimensions of PB on the case of Kyiv, I have obtained interesting results, which are contrary to the expectations and assumptions of PB literature. Findings demonstrate that despite the dialogic rhetoric of PB it seems that in the case of Kyiv it is not about dialogue, but more about some kind of quasi-market or game where citizens participate in the competition for winning their city initiatives/projects. As my observations reveal, interestingly, there were several different ways of how control shapes the dialogic dimensions of the PB process in Kyiv. Different actors in the PB process exercised boundary, interactive and beliefs systems of control. The presence of control, in some cases, limits the dialogue and creates a monologic situation. At the same time, quite paradoxically, there are situations where the existence of such control
II
helps to sustain dialogue rather than limits it. Also, the case of Kyiv outlines the situations where there has been lack of control, and it limited the dialogue, such as usage of PB for the personal gain, conflict of interests, lobbying, lack of time for authorities for verification of projects and others. There should be some sort of control in order to avoid such issues and to sustain dialogue.
With these findings, the thesis has several contributions. By showing different ways how control shapes and sometimes not shape the dialogic means of PB, the thesis contributes to PB literature in general and recent calls to understand relations between control and dialogue in particular. Specifically, it is shown that some elements of control limit dialogue, but at the same time, some of them can be fruitful and sustain dialogue in PB. Moreover, absence or lack of control may lead to the point where there is no dialogue but a monologue. My practical contribution is that practitioners should be aware of how they apply the control dimension into the PB process in order to avoid unintended outcomes.
Keywords: participatory budgeting, dialogue, control, participants, a case study of Kyiv, elements of dialogue, Simons’ levers of control.
III
Acknowledgements
The work on this thesis has been challenging and demanding, but extremely interesting for me. I thank Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University and Nord University for such a great double-degree program. This period of my life has left only good memories, and I do appreciate such an exciting opportunity that I have gotten from this program.
I want to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor – Evgenii Aleksandrov from Nord University – for his valuable pieces of advice and for encouraging me throughout the whole process of writing this thesis. Evgenii has inspired me and showed me the right way with all sympathy, enthusiasm and integrity that helped me with this thesis. I want as well thank my supervisor from Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University – Nataliia Miedviedkova – for her valuable comments and inspiration that I have gotten from the meetings with her.
I sincerely appreciate all professors and staff members at Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University and Nord University. Especially, Igor Lyutyy and Anatoli Bourmistrov for making such a program possible. My gratitude also goes to everyone who has read the drafts of my thesis and has given valuable comments. I want as well to thank the informants of my thesis who agreed to talk with me.
Finally, I thank my parents, brother and family for their encouragement, care, patience, love and support.
Bohdan Dorosh 19.05. 2019
IV
Content
Abstract ... I Acknowledgements ... III Content ... IV List of acronyms ... V
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Literature review and theory ... 3
2.1 PB as an element of democracy improvement, its rhetoric and practice ... 4
2.2 PB from the perspective of dialogue and control as a method theory ... 9
3. Methodology... 13
3.1 Philosophical background of the research ... 13
3.2 Research Design ... 15
3.3 Data collection... 17
3.4 Data analysis ... 21
3.5 Validity, reliability and ethical aspects ... 22
4. Empirical part... 25
4.1 Empirical background ... 25
4.2 PB in Kyiv as a dialogue from different perspectives ... 29
4.2.1 Purpose of the dialogue in PB ... 30
4.2.2 Topic of the dialogue in PB ... 32
4.2.3 Participants of the dialogue in PB ... 35
4.2.4 Time span of the dialogue in PB ... 38
4.2.5 Forum of the dialogue in PB ... 41
4.2.6 Method of the dialogue in PB ... 43
5. Discussion ... 49
5.1 PB dialogue and control in the case of Kyiv ... 49
5.2 Purpose of the dialogue and lack of control ... 52
5.3 Topic of the dialogue and boundary, interactive and beliefs control as well as lack of it ... 53
5.4 Participants of the dialogue and lack of control ... 55
5.5 Time span of dialogue and boundary and interactive control... 56
5.6 Forum of the dialogue and absence of control ... 57
5.7 Method of dialogue in PB and interactive control and lack of it ... 57
6. Conclusion ... 61
6.1 Summary of the study ... 61
6.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 63
List of references ... 65
V
Appendix A ... 72
Appendix B ... 74
Appendix C ... 76
Appendix D ... 78
Appendix E ... 79
List of acronyms
BCU – Budget Code of Ukraine KCC – Kyiv City Council
KCSA – Kyiv City State Administration LOC - Levers of Control
PB – Participatory Budgeting
1
1. Introduction
Many scholars have observed social, political and economic changes in Western representative democracies that have significantly influenced the relationship between citizens and government in the last decades (Schneider &
Busse, 2019). Furthermore, trend to the reduction of trust for the government and other political institutions (Volodin, 2019), widening legitimacy gap between citizens and government (Brun-Martos & Lapsley, 2017), dramatic decrease in voter turnout and involvement of citizens into the politics (Siaroff, 2009) reviled that the current democracies are in the crisis of representative politics (Fung, 2006; Tormey, 2015). That is why citizens seek new ways of being heard and having more power for influencing the decision-making process. Nowadays, there are many attempts to reinvent the public sector, both in developing and emerging countries (van Helden & Uddin, 2016). In order to deal with the crisis, governments have been forced to invent new tools of citizens’ engagement in the decision-making process, based on deliberation and collaboration (Fung, 2015).
The example of such an accounting tool is participatory budgeting (PB), which can strengthen democracy through deliberation. Even though PB is one of the most popular tools in the public sector (Sintomer, Herzberg, & Röcke, 2008), it is adopted differently in a variety of cases. In general, under PB we understand the process, when unelected citizens have a chance to be involved in deliberation on the allocation of part of the local budget funds, that may result in the creation of new mechanisms of accountability. PB, as a dialogic tool, has a lot of rhetoric with its fundamental values of social justice, democratic legitimacy and effectiveness (Fung, 2015).
However, despite all of this positive rhetoric, many scholars acknowledge that PB effectiveness cannot be taken for granted, and some negative issues may arise (Bartocci, Grossi, & Mauro, 2019). It seems that there is a mismatch between PB rhetoric and practices observed. PB practices may end up: with developing
2
only symbolic social justice (Harun, Van-Peursem, & Eggleton, 2015; Uddin, Gumb, & Kasumba, 2011), with monologue (Aleksandrov, Bourmistrov, &
Grossi, 2018), with symbolic implementation (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016), and with only strengthening existing inequalities (Bourdieu, 2004). Moreover, there is a lack of willingness to participate in PB process from both citizens and authorities observed in many different cases (Rodgers, 2005; Uddin et al., 2011; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016), as well as lack of technical and analytical skills for successful implementation (Wampler, 2000).
Wide variety of theories were used to examine PB and its challenges, including all branches of institutional theory (Aleksandrov et al., 2018; Bartocci et al., 2019), actor-network theory (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018), political science theory (Rodgers, 2005), and others. Even though all of them have different aspects to cover, it seems that there is a common acknowledgement that dialogue and democratic means of PB should somehow be controlled, steered and framed.
Although there is quite a lot of literature about PB, implementation of it, its rhetoric, positive and negative outcomes, and its problematic nature, there is not so much written about the control and steering dimension in PB. In this regard, the thesis intends to understand the role and the meaning of control dimension in the PB and its influence on its dialogic potential. The specific research question is: “What kind of control is exercised in the PB process and how it shapes PB dialogic means?”.
In order to answer this question, I combine ideas from control literature using the Simons’ LOC framework (Simons, 1995; Tessier & Otley, 2012) and dialogue literature (Rajala & Laihonen, 2019). Even though the concept of control is quite ambiguous (Tessier & Otley, 2012), for this master thesis, the ‘steering’
definition is used based on the Simons (1995) LOC framework, and all the levers from his framework may be applied for the PB agenda.
3
This thesis is a qualitative study, which empirically is based on the case of the capital of Ukraine, which is Kyiv. The case was chosen as Ukraine is an example of a country with a transitional economy (Kvartiuk, 2015) and with a crisis of representative democracy and where there are attempts to reinvent democracy (Nodia, Cenușă, & Minakov, 2017). The case of Kyiv is particularly interesting for investigation due to its scope (more than 150 thousand participants in 2018), innovativeness (use of online platforms) and dialogic rhetoric of PB with many actors involved (citizens, NGOs, public managers and others). That made the democratic means of PB extremely complex to handle with, therefore, meaning that some steering/control mechanisms supposed to appear. Moreover, as van Helden and Uddin (2016) said there is a lack of research on the recent developments in the public sector accounting and budgeting in the developing countries. I have taken ten interviews, made several observations and made a documentary analysis.
The remainder of the thesis is structured in the following way. The next chapter of the thesis will be PB literature review and theoretical ideas used.
Further follows by methodology section, where the information about philosophical background, research design, data collection and analysis are presented. Then I present my empirical findings regarding the elements of the dialogue and the control dimension and discussion of it. The research ends with conclusions and prepositions for future research.
2. Literature review and theory
In this literature review, in order to be more conscious of the theoretical ambition of contributions in this section, I make a distinction between domain theory and method theory (Lukka & Vinnari, 2014). Domain theory is knowledge about PB as a democratic tool and its main challenges, including a mismatch between rhetoric and practice (Figure 1). Moreover, method theory is a dialogic framework (Rajala & Laihonen, 2019) together with Simons’ LOC (Simons, 1995) as a meta-level conceptual system, which can offer alternative perspectives
4 Domain theory
Research gap
Method theory Methodology
and add new valuable understanding into domain theory. In the next paragraphs, I use empirical data with the reflection on domain theory.
Figure 1. Domain and method theory
2.1 PB as an element of democracy improvement, its rhetoric and practice There is a search for new accounting mechanisms that can reinvent democracy, dialogue, and new participatory forms of organisation (Bebbington, Brown, Frame, & Thomson, 2007; Brown, Dillard, & Hopper, 2015). In the public sector, an excellent example of such an accounting tool is PB. It is undoubtedly one of the most popular and widespread accounting innovation (Sintomer, Herzberg, & Röcke, 2012) which has become central participatory mechanism used by local governments for at least past decade (Fung, 2015). So far there is no exclusive definition of PB because it has travelled throughout a world and in every different case, it has a specific model of implementation (Bartocci et al., 2019; Krenjova, 2017). In general, PB is a specific approach to budgeting in which unelected citizens negotiate with each other and with government officials, usually in organised meetings, in defining policies to be funded and on what
Basic knowledge about PB, it's rhetoric and
challenges
Control in PB
Dialogic management framework and levers of control Case study of
Kyiv Empirical
findings
5
projects (hospitals, schools, roads, and others) to allocate resources (Bartocci et al., 2019; Célérier & Botey, 2015; Sintomer et al., 2008; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016).
PB practices can combine aspects of representative democracy, which already exists and direct democracy, which is created by PB (Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016). Fung (2015) emphasise that when there is a democratic legitimacy issue, and the relationship between political institutions and citizens is weak, PB can be a tool for resolving those issues. Moreover, as Baiocchi and Ganuza (2014) state main objectives of PB are not just improved policing or transparency ‘but bringing to life practices that were both prefigurative of the societies we want and also part of a strategy for achieving that society’.
Since the Brazilian case of Porto Alegre in 1989, PB began to spread all over the world on four continents and was adopted both in developed and developing countries (Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014). Nowadays, there are more than 2500 cases identified all over the world (Gilman, 2016). After the success of Porto Alegrian case, PB has spread throughout Brazil, later on, hundreds of municipalities in Latin American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru, Dominican Republic and other countries in the region implemented PB (Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014; Rodgers, 2005). After implementation in Latin American countries, PB has travelled north to North America and Europe. There are dozens of predominantly successful examples of PB in Europe in countries like UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, France and Portugal (Allegretti & Herzberg, 2004; Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014; Bartocci et al., 2019;
Schneider & Busse, 2019).
PB itself has a lot of rhetoric, especially regarding the dialogue between citizens and authorities (Brown, 2009) and positive outcomes, revealed by many scholars (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006; Hadden & Lerner, 2011; Lerner, 2011).
Some studies define that PB has a potential to establish new democratic agenda and new mechanisms of accountability, improve citizen control and strengthen
6
their trust in government, enhance legitimacy of government decisions and actions, increase transparency of government, promote fairer, more efficient and more comprehensive decision-making, and foster social justice (Abers, 2000;
Cooper et al., 2006; Hadden & Lerner, 2011; Kuruppu et al., 2016; Rodgers, 2005;
Wampler, 2000). Furthermore, Célérier and Botey (2015) reveal that those citizens who were marginalised before the PB have a chance to become a part of the elite during the process of PB execution. Besides, PB is expected to serve as a mediating tool between the government and democratic accountability of it (Brun-Martos & Lapsley, 2017; Bryer, 2014).
As for developing countries, international organisations promoted the implementation of PB, especially in Africa (Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda, Mauritius and others) and Asia (Kasozi-Mulindwa, 2013; Uddin & Hopper, 2003). During the last decade, PB has travelled to developing countries in Eastern Europe, among which Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Russia and other countries can be defined (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018; Polko, 2015; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016; Volodin, 2014, 2019). Noteworthy that PB seems to be boundlessly adaptable to the most diverse context and is suitable for the most distinguished political conditions with its rhetoric (Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014).
Despite PB rhetoric, an increasing number of scholars are not that optimistic about the democratic promises and effectiveness of PB; they indicate that some challenges may also appear (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018;
Bartocci et al., 2019). PB having dialogic rhetoric in the beginning can end up with monologue (Aleksandrov et al., 2018; Harun et al., 2015), with entirely ceremonial implementation (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018; Uddin, Mori, &
Adhikari, 2017; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016) and with only symbolic changes on existing inequalities (Bourdieu, 2004). In some contexts, PB has even undermined the previously existed trust between citizens and politicians (Michels & De Graaf, 2010). Irvin and Stansbury (2004) claim that no matter what method of
7
communication (e.g. public meetings, focus groups, etc.) was used the unrepresentativeness and poor attendance of budget meetings have been observed.
Rodgers (2005) reveals that there is a lack of willingness to participate in PB from both citizens and authorities. Similar observations have been made by Velinov and Kuruppu (2016) in the Czech Republic, where people often avoid the direct participation citing the cultural conditions (laziness of most of the citizens), and where the dominance of political parties and massive resistance of Mayor on the adoption of PB have undervalued it. Uddin et al. (2017) define that in the case of Japan the poor citizen engagement and lack of political participation are since local cultural conditions have not been taken into account while transferring such accounting tool as PB to the Japanese context. Russian experience of PB shows that symbolic implementation of PB and ignorance have led to a decrease in democratic legitimacy (Aleksandrov & Kuznetcova, 2015). Moreover, in some cases, both citizens and politicians lack analytical and technical skills that can undermine the successful implementation of PB (Wampler, 2000), and limits the influence of citizens on a budget because of domination of technical experts (Célérier & Botey, 2015; Fung, 2006; Hong, 2015).
Therefore, it seems that there is a strong mismatch between the rhetoric of PB and practices observed. This mismatch has been explained in different ways using different theories. For example, some scholars use political science theories, such as Bordieusian framework, showing that political elites do not want to give their power to the citizens (Célérier & Botey, 2015). Some are reflecting on neo- institutional aspects including institutional work and reflexivity trap (Aleksandrov et al., 2018), institutional logics, stating that administrative logic is dominating in the case of China (He, 2011) and political logic is dominating in the case of Italy (Bartocci et al., 2019). Issue of non-human actors role that limited democratic potential of PB using actor-network theory is examined (Aleksandrov &
Timoshenko, 2018). Rogers’ theory of diffusion is used to explain the introduction
8
of PB (Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016); and cultural theory is used for examining the importance of local context in introducing of PB in Japan (Uddin et al., 2017).
There has been plenty of research about the key dimensions of PB (Beckett
& King, 2002), as well as the wide range of implementation approaches of PB have been analysed (G. J. Miller & Evers, 2002). The PB practice’s design and factors that influence the PB initiation and consequences of its implementation (Abdel-Monem, Herian, Hoppe, PytlikZillig, & Tomkins, 2016; Brun-Martos &
Lapsley, 2017; Sintomer et al., 2008) together with the role of emancipatory potential of PB in creation of substantial social change (Célérier & Botey, 2015) have been examined. Several studies have investigated the development of actors’
logic during the adoption and implementation of PB (Bartocci et al., 2019), the role of human and non-human actors in translation of PB to the local context (Aleksandrov & Timoshenko, 2018), and the role played by consultants, politicians, managers in shaping dialogic potential of PB (Aleksandrov et al., 2018).
Notwithstanding all these research papers, it seems that there is some increasing acknowledgement that dialogue and democratic means of PB should be translated into public sector realities. Inevitably PB should somehow be designed, framed and controlled, since it becomes more and more issue of not politicians, but public managers and public administration. So far, not so many scholars try to reflect how it is possible to bring dialogic means of PB into sort of control dimension of public administration by public managers because in most cases we have some managers who will design and who will lead all these processes of participation. However, there is not so much understanding of how they frame their decisions on what is essential to control and how; what control to exercise? And this actually goes in line with recent calls of Aleksandrov et al.
(2018) who state that it would be interesting to study how much control is needed in order to sustain healthy and balanced dialogue between involved actors who are used to act in a monologic way (Brown & Dillard, 2015a,b).
9
2.2 PB from the perspective of dialogue and control as a method theory Inevitably some kind of a merger between dialogue and control in PB is needed. All scholars agree that dialogue is the central part of PB. However, not so many researches are theorising the elements of PB dialogue, only Aleksandrov et al. (2018) and Uddin et al. (2017) write about it, but from the dialogic- monologic perspective. There are other researchers Rajala and Laihonen (2019), who have defined six elements of dialogue based on the management perspective.
In their research paper, Rajala and Laihonen (2019) propose a definition of dialogue, define elements of it and develop the concept of dialogic performance management. Using the narrative analysis, they reveal that managerial choices shape the dialogic management and define whether it is based on the monologue or dialogue. For this research, I integrate their model, which consist of six elements of dialogue into the paradigm of PB, combining it with the concept of control, as these elements should somehow be framed. My model is based on the elements of a dialogue defined by them but translating them to the context of PB (Table 1).
Table 1. Elements of the dialogue in PB (adapted from Rajala and Laihonen (2019))
Elements of the dialogue
Characteristic
Dialogue has a purpose
PB dialogue purpose should be promoting civic engagement, active participation, governance and new forms of democracies (Célérier & Botey, 2015; Cooper et al., 2006;
Hadden & Lerner, 2011; Rodgers, 2005).
Dialogue has a topic
PB dialogue should be concentrated on the forming of part of budget expenditures, on what projects (topics) to spend it - hospitals, schools, roads, or others (Bartocci et al., 2019;
Sintomer et al., 2008; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016).
10
Dialogue has participants
All people, including managers, consultants, members of NGOs and citizens, should participate in PB dialogue (Célérier & Botey, 2015). However, in practice lack of citizens participation is observed (Rodgers, 2005; Uddin et al., 2017; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016), as well as the dominance of politicians (Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016) and NGOs (Aleksandrov et al., 2018) on the PB dialogue.
Dialogue has a time span
Dialogue demands time (Bohm, 2013), takes time (Yankelovich, 2001), is an ongoing process (Brown &
Dillard, 2015b), and attaches to budgeting timetable (Aleksandrov et al., 2018). Less research is done about the time dimension in PB; however, dialogue should continue throughout the whole budgeting process.
Dialogue has a forum
Dialogue in PB should be designed as face-to-face open meetings (Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014) and needs a shared space (Banathy & Jenlink, 2005).
Dialogue is based upon a
dialogue method (i.e.
code of behaviour)
Dialogue in PB should give the possibility for everybody to speak and foster healthy democracy with deliberation (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O'Leary, 2005). However, a bunch of studies show that it is not happening (Aleksandrov &
Timoshenko, 2018; Uddin et al., 2017; Velinov & Kuruppu, 2016).
The concept of control is quite ambiguous and different scholars define it in a completely different way (Malmi & Brown, 2008; Tessier & Otley, 2012). It becomes even more problematic to understand when we talk about democracy.
What is the place of control in fruitful democracy? For this thesis, Simons (1995) framework is used to define control. Even though Simons’ LOC framework has been criticised in the past decades for having ambiguous and vague definitions
11
(Tessier & Otley, 2012), it is still widely used. His study conceptualises control as four levers that can be used to “steer” – diagnostic control, beliefs, boundary and interactive control systems (Simons, 1995). It seems that each of the LOC can be exercised regarding the elements of dialogue. In my research, I try to capture what levers are exercised for each of the six elements of dialogue.
Beliefs systems are the broad set of definitions that managers use to communicate with employees. These systems are used in order to draw the attention of the employees to the key credos of the organisation, that are concerned with the creation of value, the desirable level of performance and managing internal and external relationships (Simons, 1995). Reflecting on PB, it can be seen in the paper of He (2011) who studied the Chinese case, where the whole process was primarily influenced and reshaped by the Chinese government in order to meet their specific needs. The case was studied through the perspective of the institutional logics and domination of the administrative logic, rather than through beliefs systems of control. However, in his case, as a result, this chosen approach driven by the government control limited empowering of citizens through PB.
Boundary systems are based on the management principle called ‘power of negative system’ (Simons, 1995, p. 84). The main idea of these systems is to set up the list of things employees should not do, for example, by establishing a code of conduct. Reflecting on PB, it can be that there are lots of templates, frames, guidelines, best practices on how to implement PB and what should be avoided.
There are lots of cases in Africa and Asia where the whole implementation process of PB was supervised by international organisations or by donor countries and was based on the templates (Kasozi-Mulindwa, 2013; Uddin & Hopper, 2003).
However, the results of such implementation in most cases were not successful.
Interactive control systems are ‘formal information systems that managers use to involve themselves regularly and personally in the decision activities of subordinates’ (Simons, 1995, p. 86). The attention is focused on particular issues,
12
facilitating new ideas and opportunities, creating dialogue and stimulating learning (Adler & Chen, 2011; Ferreira & Otley, 2009). Reflecting on PB, it can be seen in the paper of Uddin et al. (2017), wherein the case of Japan the whole process has been led by political parties who have been shaping the whole process.
Also, the Czech Republic case study by Velinov and Kuruppu (2016), where the Mayor plays a critical role and have been against the introduction of PB and have tried to avoid the implementation of PB.
Diagnostic control systems are information systems used by managers in order to monitor the outcomes of the organisation activity, that help them to correct deviations from pre-set targets (Simons, 1995). They are used to decrease the burden of managers of constant controlling. Diagnostic controls represent controls that only take place when there are deviations from the established targets (Ferreira & Otley, 2009). Reflecting on PB, it can be seen in lots of cases, where the public managers or those responsible for PB process have been changing something in the PB process in order to increase the positive outcomes of PB.
Thus, in this section, key theoretical perspectives of PB have been outlined.
PB, as a democratic tool and its main challenges, including a mismatch between rhetoric and practice, has been defined as a domain theory. In the understanding of PB rhetoric and practice, there is the call to define control dimension in PB.
The gap which I address in the domain theory is the relation between dialogic means of PB and the role of control. In this regard, PB is viewed as the element that consists of six elements of dialogue based on Rajala and Laihonen (2019) framework combining it with the control literature, in particular, Simons’ LOC (Simons, 1995) which constitute the method theory of this thesis. In other words, I try to capture each aspect of the dialogue from the perspective of control. After getting the perceptions of control of these related elements of the dialogue from actors involved in PB practices, I compare the results with the model presented in Table 1.
13
3. Methodology
The method or combination of methods that researchers use in order to conduct the research is profoundly affected by the aim of the research (P. Johnson
& Duberley, 2000). In this chapter of the thesis, philosophical assumptions, as well as an overview of research methods and techniques of data gathering used during the research, are presented. In order to answer the research question of this paper, the qualitative research method has been used. The consideration of validity and reliability issues as well as ethical aspects concerning obtaining and interpretation of the empirical data are presented at the end of the chapter.
Timeframes of this research are presented in Appendix A.
3.1 Philosophical background of the research
In order to write a scientific paper, the researcher needs to be aware of his philosophical assumptions (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2015).
Philosophical traditions in science determine how the research work is constructed. According to Burrell (1979), philosophy of science concern about the variety of ways of understanding the world (Ontology), how knowledge can be best acquired (Epistemology), and if people are ruled by external influences (human nature).
There are three leading philosophical positions presented to study social sciences: internal realism, nominalism and relativism (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015, p. 140). The internal realism position assumes that there is a single reality, but it is impossible for scientists to access the reality directly, and the researcher can only get the indirect evidence on what is happening on fundamental physical processes (Putnam, 1987). From the nominalist ontology, there is no truth and facts are created by a human (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015, p. 141). The relativism position considers that different people can experience the phenomenon in different way and facts depend on their viewpoint (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
The topic of my study, PB, refers to social science research, where the behaviour of people, rather than examination of objects are studied. In the case of
14
my research, various viewpoints on the control of the dialogue in PB of different involved actors exist. As Collins (1983, p. 88) says ‘what counts for the truth can vary from place to place and from time to time’. The diversity of opinions of actors involved in the PB process can lead to the point where each of them may have his or her way of thinking on the control dimension of dialogue in PB. Consequently, I admit that the views of the actors presented in this thesis primarily refer to personal perceptions of the subject of research.
The nature of the chosen topic widely influenced the epistemological approach choice, which considered the ontological foundation. There are two different theoretical attitudes of how social science research should be performed:
positivism and social constructionism (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). There are lots of philosophical assumptions and methodologies linked to each position.
However, there is no single philosopher, who is using only one particular view (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). The core idea of positivism is the external existence of the social world, and its properties are measured through objective methods and are independent of social actors. Social constructionism relates to the group of approaches connected with interpretive methods (Habermas, 1970). The main essence of social constructionism is that the aspects of social reality are determined by the people, but not by objective or external factors (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
It is quite challenging to define a philosophical position as pure positivism or social constructionism; the combination of these paradigms is usually used. In my research I define my philosophical position closer to social constructionism, the idea of which is the focus on the people perceptions of the world – primarily through sharing their experience through the means of language (Berger &
Luckman, 1966; Shotter, 1993). As Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) mention the task of the social constructionism researcher should not be to collect facts and measure the frequency of specific patterns but to acknowledge the different constructions and meanings that individuals place upon their experience. Using the chosen
15
epistemology, I try to investigate and evaluate the perceptions of different actors involved in the PB practice.
3.2 Research Design
Taking into account my philosophical position and the fact that in this research data is in the form of words, the qualitative research method is applied.
Qualitative research is based on multiple meanings of individual experiences, that are constructed socially and historically, and has an intent to contribute to the theory (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). Under this research method the reality is viewed as socially constructed phenomena that give a comprehensive insight into the concepts and is based on what people think, do and what they are often unaware of (Forsythe, 1999). Data is collected through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared meanings, documents, tools, and other artefacts (Klein & Myers, 1999). Qualitative research design is used when the aim is to understand what is happening with phenomena, gaining new insights and shedding new light on it (Stoop & Berg, 2003).
There are several different ways to design research: descriptive, explorative and causal. Using a descriptive research design, the author aims to describe the characteristics of the phenomenon studied with the usage of collected data. Even though this research design provides factual, accurate and systematic data, the research cannot be used to describe the things that caused the situation (Mitchell
& Jolley, 2007). Another approach is an exploratory research which is applied to study the phenomenon that has not been clearly defined (Mitchell & Jolley, 2007).
Exploratory research often relies on qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and analysis of secondary sources of data. This approach is used to provide new insights into the phenomenon and answer the why, how, and what questions (Mason, 2006). Causal research or explanatory research is conducted when there is a need to identify cause-and-effect relationships (Markus & Robey, 1988).
16
In this research, I have applied a case-study strategy with the exploratory research design with descriptive elements. Case study research can be beneficial for studying and understanding of complicated issues (Zainal, 2007). According to Yin (2017, p. 23) ‘a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.’ A case study is recognised as a great tool to study issues regarding education (Gülseçen
& Kubat, 2006), sociology and community-based problems (M. Johnson, 2006).
Therefore, an object of the case study can be a variety of different things: an institution, an individual, a community, an activity or an event.
For this research, I have decided to choose the PB project in the City of Kyiv as a case. My ambition is to contribute to the theory and knowledge about PB, in general, using the empirical settings of Kyiv as there is an evolving PB practice.
Ukraine is an example of countries with the crisis of modern representative democracy, where the reinvention of democracy and creation of new democratic tools take place (Kvartiuk, 2016; Nodia et al., 2017). Ukraine is a developing country with a transitional economy, and it is the country with a Soviet past (Kvartiuk, 2015). Kyiv has been chosen, because it has an ongoing PB project as a new democratic tool started in 2016 (Miedviedkova & Rashdi, 2018). As it is still entirely a new tool for Kyiv and Ukraine in particular, it would be relevant to study the control dimension, as it is evolving from year to year. In Kyiv, the PB process seems to be administrative and managers driven. Some people created and managed the whole process, so it is a great chance to capture the control dimension. Furthermore, it seems that this case is in line with Aleksandrov and Timoshenko (2018) and Aleksandrov et al. (2018) and can provide additional knowledge and theory about PB. Moreover, as van Helden and Uddin (2016) admit, the research about recent developments in the public sector accounting and
17
budgeting in the developing countries is in short supply. The next paragraph describes the main actors in the PB process in Kyiv.
The PB process in Kyiv has begun in 2016 and has been evolving each year.
Currently, there are several main actors involved in the PB process in Kyiv:
citizens-participants, public managers (who work in local administration and local council) and members of NGOs (the primary function is the public control of PB process). During the implementation stage and throughout the next years there were as well consultants (often members of NGOs) who were helping with establishing the process and with maintaining the IT platform (websites, e-voting system). Public managers and members of NGOs are taking part in the PB process as the members of City/district working groups, PB commission and different departments in local administration. Deputies of the Kyiv City Council (KCC) adopt the Regulation on the PB for each year and make the amendments to the local budget. The PB process consists of the cooperation of all of the stated above actors. The whole process is explained in the empirical section. The more detailed analysis of these main actors is presented in Appendix B.
3.3 Data collection
As I have said before, I have chosen a qualitative research methodology for collecting data in this thesis. Qualitative data refers to pieces of information collected in the non-numeric form (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). The main qualitative techniques rely on language and its interpretation, so data collection methods involve the direct participation of people and tend to develop the theory rather than testing it (Walliman, 2006). In qualitative research, the researcher is the main instrument of data collection and is responsible for gathering the words or pictures, analysing them, focuses on the language of participants, and describes different processes (Creswell & Poth, 2017).
Qualitative methods consist of several types of data collection: direct observation, participation, interviewing, ethnography and written documents (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Based on resource and time limitations, my study was
18
mainly based on interviews and documentary analysis. However, direct observations method has also been applied.
Interviews
Interviews are the major source of primary data in this research. Interviews are one of the most important sources of information for the case study method (Yin, 2017). Qualitative interviewing helps the researcher to reconstruct the events that he has never experienced, and by combining the descriptions from separate interviews, the researcher can create the view of different processes (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Furthermore, in-depth interviewing aids in creating a portrait of the ongoing social process (Miller, 2007). The process of qualitative interviewing is based on conversation, whereas the researcher is asking questions and listening, and interviewees answer.
Interviews are different from day-to-day conversations since they are based on the number of questions about a particular purpose, usually having an in-depth exploration of the chosen topic (Charmaz, 2006). In this master thesis, semi- structured interviews are chosen. Semi-structured interviews are a list of questions asked in a flexible manner, where the role of the researcher is not to lead a informant towards an answer, but rather to provoke an informant to speak up on the chosen topic (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Semi-structured interviews are more open due to the fact, that interview questions provide more critical and precise information regarding the topic because of the more personal replies. An open manner of the interview guide let the informant speak and express their perceptions and thoughts in the most attentive way possible (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
Taking into consideration the time limits and financial constraints, I have collected as much as I perceived enough divergent views. The idea of the data collection has been to cover the different perspectives of the control in PB, regarding the elements of dialogue. I have decided to focus on the main people involved in City working group (three informants), PB commission (two
19
informants), and as well I have interviewed citizens-participants who were creating the projects (see Appendix C). Six out of ten interviewees have had dual roles in the PB process during 2016-2019. Almost all of my interviewees have previously been citizens-participants before becoming the public managers or members of PB commission. I stopped conducting the interviews when I perceived that each new interview does not give me more valuable information.
Prior each of the interview I have sent an email to interviewees, or have told them by phone or face-to-face about who I am, what I am doing, what my study is about, why I want to talk with them, and what will be discussed with them. The example of the letter is presented in Appendix D. The interview guide (Appendix E) is used only internally. The questions in the interview guide were not strict questions that I would ask but more a guideline that I used. The informants knew that the interview would be about the topics I specified either in the letter or orally. However, they have not seen the questions, as the questions were prepared using the theoretical framework for internal usage by myself.
It was quite challenging for me as a master’s student to prepare the right questions, especially regarding the enormous differences in languages. As interviews have been conducted using Ukrainian, the interview guide presented in Appendix E is slightly different from the one I used, because it is impossible to translate directly from English to Ukrainian and vice versa without losing the idea of a question. So, questions were translated with slight changes as the meaning of each of them regarding these two languages if translated directly, is biased. To sum up, the questions asked were not as concrete as they are presented in the interview guide. During the interview, I have presented the topics of the interview and have been asking the questions regarding those topics. If the question was not understandable, I have paraphrased it in order to make it more transparent for the informant.
During interviews, I have asked my informants to advise people that I can interview that would be relevant. Thus, I have used the ‘snowball method’ for
20
getting into contact with other related to PB in Kyiv people. ‘Snowball method’
is a method where the researcher is looking for the people with a high degree of knowledge on a studied topic, and then ask them to recommend other potential interviewees that would be relevant (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). One of the public managers has personally introduced me with the rest of the informants in administration. Moreover, I spent approximately an hour with him after the interview; he showed me how the website of the PB process in Kyiv is administrated, how the debates are being held.
I have recorded almost all of the interviews, except for one interview, where the informant has not allowed to do so. In this particular case, I have been writing the answers of the informant on the sheet of paper during the interview.
Immediately after the interview, I have finalised her answers that I have not entirely written down and have sent her to get the approval whether I have understood her right. The rest of the interviews that have been recorded have been thoroughly transcribed and interpreted, and later on, sent to the interviewees if some parts of the interview have not been clearly understood. The main idea of that was not only to check my interpretations but to get new insights from the informants.
Observations and documentary analysis
In addition to 10 interviews conducted, observations and documentary analysis techniques were used. Firstly, I have slightly used the direct observation method. I have attended two meetings where there was deliberation on some projects of citizens-participants and on how to create the project. Specifically, I have been observing the debates about the rejected projects for 20 minutes.
Further, I have as well observed the deliberation held for the citizens-participants on how to create the projects for two hours. I was the complete observer of the process, which means that I maintained distance to the objects and contexts, avoiding interaction with them (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). I have taken notes
21
during the observation of these deliberations. It helped me to understand how the deliberations are held and what are the purposes and topics of them.
Secondly, I have used additional documentary sources. In general, secondary sources of data include written documents that have been produced by someone else, but that are relevant to a given research project (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). For the qualitative research, it is an advantage to analyse the background data about the context of the topic of the research. It is hardly a significant part of data collection, but it may help the researcher to better understand the phenomena and its context (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
Analysing this type of data helps me to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the PB process in Kyiv and is used to strengthen the validity and reliability of my research.
Among main types of the secondary data I have used are official government documents, laws, statistics provided by the website of the Kyiv City PB and reports made by NGOs about the PB process in Ukraine in general and in particular in Kyiv. It gave a general understanding of the PB process in Kyiv, its main participants, stages, the formation of the PB commission, implementation of projects, their types, etc. I have also used other written materials such as textbooks, newspaper articles, political speeches and earlier publications on the topic of PB in Kyiv.
3.4 Data analysis
After reading documents, observation notes and transcribed interview recordings, I have coded the information from all sources of data. The codes have been primarily taken from the theory and included elements of dialogue (Rajala
& Laihonen, 2019) and LOC (Simons, 1995). The rest of the codes have been created by the researcher and included other interesting findings of PB in Kyiv in general. A deductive approach to analysis is that where codes are almost all predetermined and are taken from the literature; an inductive approach is that where there are no previously determine codes, and they are derived from the data
22
gathered from the informants (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). Thus, the mixture of deductive and inductive coding methods has been applied, what is also referred as obduction approaching, i.e. moving back and force from theoretical ideas to empirical findings (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
The research work is based on a cross-case analysis. ‘Cross-case analysis is a research method that facilitates the comparison of commonalities and difference in the events, activities, and processes that are the units of analyses in case studies.’ (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008, p. 2). The cross-case analysis may be performed using comparison and survey research (Yin, 2017). In comparison research, the data of each interview is analysed in full priory to make relevant comparisons. The responses of the interviewees have been analysed and compared on the cross-case basis to indicate similarities, differences and links in their perceptions of dialogue and control in PB.
3.5 Validity, reliability and ethical aspects
Validity and reliability can have different meanings depending on the philosophical position chosen. The researcher can use different tools for assessing the quality of research depending on the chosen epistemological approach. In this research, as it was mentioned before I have used social constructionism.
Reliability is about ‘whether there is transparency about data collection and interpretation?” and validity concentrates on “whether the study clearly gains access to the experience of those in the research setting?’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015, p. 306). The validity and reliability of the research largely depend on the methodological skills, integrity and sensitivity of the researcher, his ability to interview rather than just asking questions (Patton, 1990). The researcher must ensure a high level of validity and reliability by merely collecting relevant and high-quality data.
Reliability is about the possibility of replication of the research at a different time, either by another researcher or by the same researcher (Riley, Wood, Clark, Wilkie, & Szivas, 2000). To ensure the reliability of the study I have conducted
23
several interviews with different relevant people connected with PB process in Kyiv, as well as read relevant secondary data, including laws, official documents of the City Council, official reports made by the local-level managers, and statistics provided by the official website of the Kyiv City PB.
The issues of internal and external validities are as well described. External validity questions the generalizability of the research (Yin, 2017). I strive for theoretical generalisation, not empirical (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), so the issue of external validity is not relevant. Internal validity questions the results of the research, whether they are derived correctly (Yin, 2017). Internal validity concerns the whole research process. In order to ensure internal validity of my research, I have used both primary and secondary sources of data, and I have based my work on the previous literature and used proper theory to answer my research question.
As for the ethical aspect, I can assure that the research process is done truthfully without violating any ethical standards or applicable Code of Conduct.
From the very beginning of the correspondence with interviewees, I have told them about myself, my research, have gotten their permission for conducting the interview and for audio recording. Moreover, I have gotten their permission on the usage of their names in my research. During the interview, every informant was able to stop answering at any point in time he or she felt unconfident or inconvenient. Besides, the interviewees were able to comment on the transcribed interviews.
However, one of the interviewees, who were citizen-participant, refuses to meet with me, has not allowed me to record the interview and to use her name in the research. During the interview, she told me her view on the conflict of interest of one of the deputies of City council as well as the unethical behaviour of this deputy and couple of public managers, and violations within the voting stage of PB. She said that she had no factual evidence about such violations, only her thoughts that is why she does not want me to include her name in this research.
24
As her contacts were given to me by another informant, I have to anonymise all of the informants.
During a couple of interviews, when I stopped recording, the informants started telling me more about the issues we discussed. After that, I have written their words down, send to them and ask if I can use them in my work. I received positive answers from all the people I asked. Some of the informants told me interesting things about some deputies, conflicts of interests and some other citizens-participants who have on their opinion violated some rules. It should be noted that other interviewees partially told me the same information, but before the point when I stopped recording.
25
4. Empirical part
In this section, I am presenting the empirical data that I have collected. At first, the background information about the case of Kyiv, which I have taken from secondary sources of data and interviews, is presented. It includes the general description of the PB process from 2016 till 2019, as well as the role of the main actors involved in this process. Then I provide the information that I have gotten from the interviews about the elements of dialogue and LOC applied to each of them.
4.1 Empirical background
According to the website of the Kyiv City participatory budgeting, the idea of introduction of PB began spreading in early 2016. USAID (NGO) have started promoting the idea of implementation of PB in Kyiv. They received a grant from the US government and developed their model of PB for Kyiv based on the Polish experience. Mayor of the city liked the idea, and Kyiv City State Administration (KCSA) issued a Regulation on implementing the PB based on the model developed by USAID on 15th of September 2016. The total amount of funds that have been allocated for PB in 2016 is equal to 50 million UAH or 0,01% of the 2017 budget.
However, Centre for Innovations Development and several other NGOs argued that this model had been developed without any deliberations with citizens and other NGOs. The local authorities agreed to organise several deliberations with the public and to make amendments into the Regulation. Lots of different actors have been involved in these deliberations including citizens, members of NGOs, public managers of KCSA, some deputies of KCC and IT specialists. In practice, as Head of Centre for Innovations Development said, ‘we were able to change the model of the Kyiv PB dramatically. In the beginning, everything had to be controlled by officials and deputies. And we, through public discussions, which I moderated, in 3 months (till the end of 2016) have worked out a radically different Regulation approved by KCC without a single vote against it. We helped
26
to develop this model on the voluntary basis […] all the things we are doing for PB in Kyiv are voluntary.’
Several other NGOs have been involved in the process of creating and implementing of PB model in 2016. Kyiv Smart City NGO has organised the whole process of deliberations on PB implementation voluntarily. The other significant NGOs that have been helping on the implementation stage are Reanimation Package of Reforms who have been consulting the local authorities and SocialBoost (NGO) who have created an online platform, where people could have submitted their projects and citizens could have voted for them. At a time when the research has been conducted the amount of money spent on PB has increased to 150 million UAH (0,26% of the budget), and the PB process included five stages outlined in Figure 2.
Figure 2. PB process in Kyiv
The PB process begins on February from the public deliberations on PB process in general, where local authorities (mainly City working group) talk with citizens and explain the essential requirements and get the feedback from citizens
February
•The beginning of public deliberation on PB
•Bringing new thoughts and experience to the PB
•Formation of the PB commission and working groups
March - April
•Creation and submission of citizens’ projects
•Collecting of other citizens voices
•Public deliberation on accepted projects
May - August
•The expertise of the projects
•Refinement of projects
•Debates between managers and citizens on rejected projects
•Promotion of the projects
September
•E-voting on the projects
•Defining the winning projects
Following year
•Realization of projects
Appointment of City/District working groups; election of PB commission
Citizens create teams and submit projects to District working groups
Teams of citizens, PB commission and public managers
Citizens, City working group, PB commission
Citizens, public managers in KCSA and communal enterprises
27
in order to change Regulation on PB if needed. During this stage, City and District working groups are appointed by City administration and District administrations respectively, whereas PB commission is elected by citizens on the e-voting process. District working groups are responsible for checking the projects of people, if they meet the formal criteria (laws, regulations), as well as consulting of the citizens and helping them to correct the technical or jurisdictional problems;
they also organize the deliberations on the submitted projects between the working groups, members of the teams that submitted the projects and other citizens. City working group is responsible for organising, shaping and moderation of the whole PB process on each stage, as well as for coordination and control of district working groups. It develops the PB process for the following year and organises the public deliberations on city-level projects and other issues if needed. PB commission is responsible for the control of the whole PB process whether it is implemented right, ensuring the ethical aspects of the process, resolving disputes between citizens and public managers, and it has a right to disqualify the projects the authors of which have used some fraud during the voting process or other stages of the PB. One of the central powers of the PB commission is that it can get back to voting the projects that have been rejected by the working groups or public managers in the departments of City administration.
From March till April, citizens unite in teams in order to create projects and submit them to the working groups (1138 projects submitted in 2018). After the submission of projects, District working groups verify the adherence of them to the different laws and regulations and can accept or reject projects for further completion. If the project is rejected, teams have time to make amendments and resubmit it. After making amendments, projects are verified again. All the accepted projects must collect voices of people using the e-voting tools (940 projects were accepted in 2018). If they collect enough voices, their project is accepted for public deliberation between the working groups, members of the
28
teams that submitted the project and other citizens. Then further verification of financial aspects is made by public managers of departments of city administration or communal enterprises.
This expertise and verification of projects, as well as public deliberation on them, are made from May till August. If the project is accepted by the public managers, they will check if the financial criteria are met (whether it is possible to realise the project with the financial plan developed for the project). In case if public managers reject the projects, the PB commission will organise debates between those managers and citizens. After that, members of the PB commission who are elected by the citizens using e-voting mechanisms and are members of NGOs, vote whether to accept or reject the project. If they accept the project, it will proceed to the voting process. During the public deliberations on this stage, citizens talk about their projects and try to convince others why their project is worth to be voted for and implemented. If the projects of different teams are quite similar, they will usually combine their separate projects into one.
After all verifications and deliberations, the e-voting process begins and lasts the whole of September. Members of the teams are collecting voices of citizens using personal communication with people they know, using social media, famous people, politicians (since 2018 deputies must declare the connection with the projects) or simply by communicating with people who might be interesting in implementing of their projects. Since one citizen of the City can vote for five projects, teams from one district usually create a pool of five projects and promote those five projects in order to ease the process of collecting of voices.
PB commission is responsible for detecting any violation regarding the voting process, including bribery. PB commission can disqualify the teams that violated any rules regarding illegal voting. At the end of September, teams who collect sufficient voices are declared winners by the City working group (342 projects won in 2018). The last stage is the realisation of these projects, which lasts the whole following budgeting year. It involves the sincere cooperation between
29
members of the winning teams and public managers of departments in the city administration of communal enterprises. The winners are responsible for the control of the realisation of projects.
Thus, based on the presented above PB process, I have contacted the main actors involved in order to get different perspectives and to collect perceptions of different actors on dialogue and control in PB. Their understanding of dialogue elements of PB and how the LOC are implicated into these elements.
4.2 PB in Kyiv as a dialogue from different perspectives
As I have mentioned, the perceptions of people on the elements of dialogue and control dimension in PB, have been collected. The general understanding of these two dimensions varies from one actor to another. All the informants said that in one or another way, the dialogue is present in the process. As one of the members of the City working group said ‘This is a completely transparent process, there is a special Facebook page that has over 10,000 people. If anyone has any questions, everything is publicly discussed. There are regular meetings at the level of teams of projects and managers of budget funds, districts, departments, public managers.’ Moreover, it is not only about the communication between citizens and local authorities but about communication among citizens.
As one of the citizens-participant said ‘…people have not communicated very much (before), and I see that now for some projects, neighbours start to speak with each other and cooperate…’ However, after analysis of all responses, I can conclude that the informants understand dialogue as a communication tool, cooperation between people. They talk more about specific outcomes, rather than a reflection of dialogue processes inside PB. It will be further elaborated in the next paragraphs.
Regarding the control dimension, different actors have a bit controversial view on that. Among people who represent the City working group or PB commission, everyone said that there are no barriers or frames of dialogue except the current legislation limitations. However, there are some limitations on the
